MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2244336952 · doi:10.82308/5762

The history of the Areopagos council from the origins to Ephialtes

2011· dissertation· en· W2244336952 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Amber J. Irwin

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMonarchyScholarshipInstitutionPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)HistoryPolitical sciencePeriod (music)LawClassicsAncient historyArtAestheticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le conseil de l'Aréopage était une des institutions les plus anciennes et les plus respectées d'Athènes. Son origine, son importance et ses fonctions demeurent ambigües en dépit des efforts des historiens anciens et modernes. La plupart des travaux modernes sur l'Aréopages se concentrent sur des événements isolés dans l'histoire de ce conseil ou sur les particularités de ses pouvoirs. Cela a donné lieu à une série d'études spécifiques qui, lorsqu'on les considère individuellement, ne sont pas d'un grand secours aux historiens pour apprécier le rôle d'ensemble de l'Aréopage dans la culture politique d'Athènes. Cette enquête réexaminera les sources littéraires et épigraphiques pour tenter de réévaluer l'histoire de l'Aréopage de la période monarchique jusqu'aux réformes d'Éphialtès. Il sera démontré que l'Aréopage avait ses origines dans un conseil de vieillards qui existait a l'époque monarchique d'Athènes et qui évolua jusqu'a devenir un puissant organe de gouvernement dont l'importance déclina seulement après les réformes d'Éphialtès. Examiner l'évolution du rôle de l'Aréopage à travers le temps permettra aux historiens de mieux comprendre le développement de cette institution et la nature changeante du gouvernement athénien.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207